Who are the bonafide disciples?

The other day I was reading through Srila Prabhupada’s lecture on Bhagavad-gita 17.1-3, Honolulu, July 4, 1974, and I reflected on this question that keeps coming up: How should we regard devotees who apparently have faith in Srila Prabhupada and believe they are serving Srila Prabhupada but take license to speculate on or contradict Srila Prabhupada’s instructions? Should they be given the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere?

The devotees all profess faith in Srila Prabhupada. Yet there is a wide discrepancy between the instructions he left for his disciples and how those instructions have been respected and obeyed. As a result of the ambitious grab for guruship and successorship immediately after Srila Prabhupada’s departure in 1977, Srila Prabhupada’s instructions pertaining to initiation of new disciples, publication of his books, operation of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, gurukula and farm communities were left to the leaders, who effectively ignored and bypassed them altogether.

Now, coming on 40 years later, all have faith in Srila Prabhupada, sure, but there is less certainty in how they should follow him, or even whether they should follow him at all when they have their own gurus to follow. Devotees in ISKCON place their faith in their gurus — up to a point; or they place their faith in ISKCON as a body, resting on the idea that the body of ISKCON is incorruptible even if the individual members are not. Devotees outside ISKCON are divided into those who have faith only in Srila Prabhupada and trust no one else and those who accept shiksha instruction from disciples who represent Srila Prabhupada.

In this verse (BG 17.1), Arjuna asks what is the position of those who have some faith but do not follow the principles of shastra. Srila Prabhupada says,

This is very important question because there are so many pseudo so-called gurus. They do not know what is shastra, neither they follow the principle. Still, they gather some people, and the world is full with such not bona fide gathering. So but they have faith in their—so-called guru that some way or other, so-called meditation… These things are going on. So what is the result of this? It is very important question. Ye shastra-vidhim utsrijya yajanteshraddhayanvitah. But they have got faith. Faith is there but misguided.

Srila Prabhupada explains, “People are being controlled by the three kinds of material nature, and if they do not follow the shastric injunction, then he will concoct, he will create something according to his position, either in the tamo-guna or rajo-guna or sattva-guna.” Srila Prabhupada goes on to say that it’s not that people have no faith. They have. But their faith is tinged by the modes of material nature. They do not know what is the spiritual process, and they cannot make progress on their own. Only those who have been elevated to the mode of goodness and are fortunate enough to meet the pure devotee, serve him and hear from him submissively can achieve real spiritual realization, and obedience is the litmus test of their faith.

This is exactly relevant to the situation inside and outside ISKCON now. What happens to the ISKCON gurus and GBCs and the persons who accept a guru under the ISKCON umbrella? What happens to the person who reads Srila Prabhupada’s books but does not accept instruction from any other authorized devotee? What happens to the person who appoints himself as ritvik? And what happens to those whom he initiates? All claim to be following Srila Prabhupada, but what does that entail?

The process is simple and straightforward. Srila Prabhupada says here:

This is the process of spiritual advancement. As it is indicated in the Vedas, tad-vijñanartham. Tad-vijñanartham means ‘To understand that transcendental science,’ gurum eva abhigacchet ‘one must take shelter of guru.’ [Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12] It cannot be manufactured. Those who manufacture the method of understanding transcendental science, they are not bona fide. So we have already discussed many times that shastra-vidhi. Guru means one who teaches the regulative principle from shastra, from authorized scripture. That is guru. Guru cannot be anyone. Acharya. Acharya means one who knows the regulative principle or direction in the shastra. He practically behaves in terms of the shastra regulative principle and teaches his student also in the same way. He is called Acharya. Achainoti yah shastrani.(?) He knows the purport of shastra, he behaves himself according to the terms of the shastra and he teaches his disciple in the same term. Evam parampara-praptam [Bg. 4.2: This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession.]. This is the process.

There is absolute necessity for accepting the spiritual master, no getting around this. And what that means, Srila Prabhupada explains further along in the lecture:

Vyasadeva has purposefully written here, shri bhagavan uvacha: “Bhagavan the Supreme Person, the ultimate….” Bhagavan means the ultimate. Just like in some country there is supreme court. So when the judgment is given by the supreme court, that is final. And when it was monarchy, the order given by the king, that is final — no more questioning. Similarly, when it is mentioned, shri bhagaan uvacha, that means it is final. No more argument, no more logic. Logic is there, argument is there, but it is final. No waste of time any more. What Bhagavan says, that is called parampara. The first utterances, order or statement, or judgment, is given by the Supreme Lord, and if that is followed through the disciplic chain, that is real understanding, real knowledge.

Devotees accept that Srila Prabhupada is Lord Krishna’s emissary, and as such, whatever he speaks is as good as Sri Bhagavan Himself speaking. There’s no room for second-guessing or speculating or wrangling over his instructions. Devotees casually use the phrase “taking shelter of Srila Prabhupada”, but if we evaluate that expression in terms of what Srila Prabhupada says about the weight of the guru’s order, it means nothing less than accepting and obeying his teachings and instructions wholly and unconditionally. Either you do or you don’t. It’s not wishful thinking. If you manufacture any other process, or defy his orders, then you are acting on your own, outside his shelter, and thus simply not qualified to represent him.

Devotees are compassionate and forgiving, and we ought to be liberal rather than judgmental towards each other. Certainly there is some latitude or allowance for application of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings in one’s own life, but personal struggle to follow the guru’s instructions is different altogether from blatant disobedience and defiance or calling the guru’s orders into question or willfully ignoring them. That is known as guror avajña, offense against the spiritual master. And that is not something we should sit back and allow without speaking up. To keep quiet is tantamount to assent. Krishna Himself does not tolerate offense against His devotees, especially not against the pure devotee, His authorized representative. Krishna is very strict. So it is important for us to understand this distinction between who is sincere even if struggling to implement the teachings and principles of Krishna consciousness in his personal life and who deliberately ignores, disobeys or even subverts the orders of the spiritual master. One is a bonafide disciple, and the other is an offender.

We might not fault devotees for failure to execute the orders of the spiritual master, especially the general teachings, but we can know their position by how they regard and respond to specific instructions that Srila Prabhupada left for the Society, in particular written directives, the Direction of Management (pdf, 717 kb), the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Agreement and other trust deeds, the letter of July 9, 1977, and his last will and testament and other specific instructions with regard to publishing of his books (no changes) and operation of the farm communities.

A case in point: the letter of July 9, 1977, Srila Prabhupada’s last written directive before his departure in November, 1977. He deputed eleven senior disciples to henceforward act as ‘Ritvik Representatives of the Acharya’ in the matter of initiating new disciples on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, and the letter clearly states that the newly initiated devotees are disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

How do the devotees line up in response to this letter?

When the letter surfaced, Hansadutta called attention to it, and published his realizations in Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You that he and the other 10 persons named in the letter were only ever appointed as deputies with the mandate to initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada and nothing more, and issued a public apology and strong arguments for upholding Srila Prabhupada’s order.

ISKCON rejected the authority of the letter outright.

Krishna Kant and other ritvik proponents rejected the significance of Srila Prabhupada’s naming the Ritvik Representatives, and Krishna Kant promoted the idea in his book The Final Order that new Ritvik Representatives could be named by the GBC or even that the formality of initiation is not important, and thus one can consider himself to be initiated even by virtue of reading Srila Prabhupada’s books. (Krishna Kant is not even an initiated disciple, but he’s full of enthusiasm for giving advice on what initiation is.)

Yashodanandan Prabhu and Kapindra Swami took it upon themselves to begin initiating as ritviks.

Madhu Pandit of ISKCON Bangalore and IRM factions held out for some time to allow for the creation of a new GBC, to whom it would be left to name ritvik initiators, but eventually gave up on that and proceeded to initiate, at first leaving it to the initiates to place their beads and a name written on a slip of paper on Srila Prabhupada’s vyasasan, and eventually going ahead to hand out the name and beads themselves to the new initiates.

Even Sundar Gopal of Singapore has got in on the action, even though he used to fiercely oppose ritvik initiation, and has made himself a ritvik initiator.

Ritvik devotees in China are initiated by a ‘brahminical counsel’ of three persons. One does the recommendation, one picks out the name, and one gives the initiation.

Notably, Krishna Kant and other ritviks do not recognize or acknowledge Hansadutta as Ritvik Representative of Srila Prabhupada, even though he is the only one of all of them who was in fact named by Srila Prabhupada to act in that capacity. Krishna Kant has gone so far as to declare that Hansadutta disqualified himself forever when he assumed the role of guru together with the other 10 persons named in the letter. This in spite of Hansadutta’s public admission and apology more than 20 years ago for his part in presuming to have been appointed as guru successor to Srila Prabhupada and his efforts to bring to light the importance of understanding that Srila Prabhupada is the spiritual master and the Sampradaya Acharya (see Srila Prabhupada, His Movement and You). The ritviks like to think that the ISKCON devotees are the ones who have disobeyed Srila Prabhupada, but they themselves do not accept Srila Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th in toto. They reject the part of the letter where Srila Prabhupada named specific Ritvik Representatives. This is an offense against Srila Prabhupada, to second guess his decision and try to circumvent it. And ironically, while condemning Hansadutta for the transgression of presuming to become guru so as to grab disciples and fame for himself, they fail to allow that he has repented, apologized for it, humbled himself and come back to the order, and so they also fall into the mistake of maryada-vyatikrama[1], impertinently asserting themselves to be more qualified even though he is senior to them and authorized by Srila Prabhupada. It may be only Krishna Kant who has voiced objections to Hansadutta acting as Ritvik Representative, but the fact is that none of the others direct any new devotees to ask Hansadutta for ritvik initiation; they have assumed the duty themselves, and by this we can understand they believe themselves to be at least as qualified as Hansadutta, if not more so. Yet, not one of them was named by Srila Prabhupada. And not one of them questions why Srila Prabhupada named specific persons rather than simply allowing any sannyasi or temple president or devotee in good standing to act as ritvik representative.

Moreover, the ritviks resist the idea that the Ritvik Representative should have any role whatsoever in giving instruction to the newly initiated devotees. Everyone more or less has the idea that they will receive instruction from Srila Prabhupada by chanting and reading his books. This is the general state of mind amongst the newly initiated devotees: “Now I’m initiated. Let me chant and read Srila Prabhupada’s books, maybe worship the deity, and figure out my own way from there. I will listen only to Prabhupada and Paramatma.”

This is not what Srila Prabhupada taught. Srila Prabhupada says that sometimes the spiritual master is not present, and in that case, the devotees take instruction from the shiksa-guru. Srila Prabhupada expected and demanded his disciples to obey his authorized representatives (See Approaching the Spiritual Master). In the lecture here, Sudama asks how to follow the authority. Srila Prabhupada replies:

PRABHUPADA: Authority is your spiritual master. You do not know who is authority? Why this question is there? If one is initiated, then he accepted the authority. And if he does not follow the instruction of spiritual master, he is a rascal. He is defying the authority. That’s all.

SUDAMA: The question also is there: the authority is the spiritual master, but the via media to the spiritual master… The difference between, like we were discussing in the automobile of shiksha and diksha-guru.

PRABHUPADA: Then so shiksha and diksha-guru… A shiksha-guru who instructs against the instruction of spiritual, he is not a shiksha-guru. He is a demon. Shiksha-guru, diksha-guru means… Sometimes a diksha-guru is not present always. Therefore one can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the shiksha-guru. Shiksha-guru does not mean he is speaking something against the teachings of the diksha-guru. He is not a shiksha-guru. He is a rascal.

Why did Krishna tell Arjuna, tad viddhi pranipatena, pariprashnena sevaya: “Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him” (Bhagavada-gita 4.34 )? Why not just say, “Read and re-read this Bhagavad-gita on your own”? After all, Krishna Himself was speaking. Whom better to listen to? But Krishna directed Arjuna and all of us to approach the spiritual master. Likewise, Srila Prabhupada is accessible in his books, but he has also directed us to accept his authorized representatives in his absence. The formula is pariprashnena sevaya: approach the spiritual master by submissive inquiries and service. The authorized representative can engage us in practical devotional service that is just suited to lift us out from the material modes of nature and situate us safely in the shelter of the parampara. We cannot free ourselves from our conditioning just by reading Srila Prabhupada’s books on our own or concocting our own devotional service.

Nor can we advance by chanting only. At the end of the lecture, Srila Prabhupada scoffs at the question raised by a devotee. She asks, “Can we just have the chanting without the instructions?” He says, “But that chanting must be pure.” If we dismiss Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, and discount and disparage his authorized representative, it is not possible for that chanting to be pure.

PRABHUPADA: … Because that is offense. Guror avajña. First offense is guror avajña, defying the authority of guru. This is the first offense. So one who is offensive, how he can make advance in chanting? He cannot make. Then everything is finished in the beginning. Guror avajña. Everything is there. If one is disobeying the spiritual master, he cannot remain in the pure status of life. He cannot be shiksha-guru or anything else. He is finished, immediately. Guror avajña shruti-shastra-nindanam, namno balad yasya hi… You do not study all these things? You become initiated. There are ten kinds of offenses. Do you have any regard for these things or not? You must avoid these ten kinds of offenses. The first offense is to disobey the orders of guru. That is first offense. So if you are offensive, how you can become advanced by chanting? That is also not possible.

From this, we have to conclude that ISKCON gurus and GBC who reject Srila Prabhupada’s instructions are disconnected. And what should we think about the ritvik proponents who take issue with Srila Prabhupada’s choice of Ritvik Representatives in the letter of July 9, 1977 and manufacture their own work-around, failing to acknowledge Hansadutta as a bonafide, authorized Ritvik Representative of Srila Prabhupada? Now we have a situation where everyone is canvassing for himself, believing themselves to be more qualified than or just as qualified as the other. Srila Prabhupada gave the procedure. He spelled everything out clearly in the letter of July 9, 1977. There is no ambiguity. Eleven persons were named. Even if only the one person has come back to the order, the order is not voided. Yet everyone inside and outside ISKCON ignores Srila Prabhupada’s express wishes and instead constructs something else from the letter. It has to be pointed out that this is mental speculation. Obedience is the first principle in discipline. For a disciple, the spiritual master’s instructions are everything, and he has nothing more to think about. Guru-mukha-padma-vakya, chittete koriya aikya, ar na koriho mane asha[2]: the words of my spiritual master are my only possession, and I do not care to think of anything else, nor do I desire anything else. If we do not bow to Srila Prabhupada’s explicit instructions, or if we think we can pick and choose what we want to follow, then we have to understand that we are acting on our own accord. That is disobedience.

I’m going to say what no one wants to hear. There is a clear line of demarcation between bonafide and unbonafide. Those who deviate from the order of guru or manufacture their own way are simply not bonafide disciples; they are not fit to represent Srila Prabhupada.
By Srila Prabhupada’s own words above, “a shiksha-guru who instructs against the instruction of spiritual, he is not a shiksha-guru. He is a demon. … Shiksha-guru does not mean he is speaking something against the teachings of the diksha-guru. He is not a shiksha-guru. He is a rascal.” Harsh words. Is it not too offensive to speak of the ritviks as belonging to this category? I am sure they mean well, and they believe they are serving Srila Prabhupada. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or to put it another way, we are prone to deceiving ourselves. It’s a matter of principle. Just like the Gaudiya Math devotees proclaim that they are followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, yet they disobeyed him and thus became, in Srila Prabhupada’s words, useless.[3]He even went to so far as to warn not to mix with them[4]. This is what Arjuna is asking about: What is the position of those who have faith but do not follow the principles of shastra? And Srila Prabhupada’s answer is unequivocal. Without surrendering to the authorized spiritual master, they cannot make any advancement. That is the process. This means surrendering to his instructions, wholesale, unconditionally, without imposing your own interpretation or ideas for how they should have been written. These are Srila Prabhupada’s last words concluding the lecture:

Whatever guru has said accept it, finally. ara nakariha mane asha[2]. Don’t divert from this. This is the instruction. How you can divert from the instruction of guru?

Authorized diksha is required — not that you invent your own process of ritvik initiation. And inquiry, service and surrender are required. This necessitates shiksha also, so that whether directly through Srila Prabhupada or with the help of his authorized representative we can get beyond the three modes of material nature to the spiritual platform.

1.Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto 3, Chapter 4, Text 26: “The rule is that in the presence of a higher personality one should not be very eager to impart instructions, even if one is competent and well versed. So Uddhava decided to send an elderly person like Vidura to Maitreya, another elderly person, but he was well versed also because he was directly instructed by the Lord while He was about to quit this mortal world. Since both Uddhava and Maitreya were directly instructed by the Lord, both had the authority to become the spiritual master of Vidura or anyone else, but Maitreya, being elderly, had the first claim to becoming the spiritual master, especially for Vidura, who was much older than Uddhava. One should not be eager to become a spiritual master cheaply for the sake of profit and fame, but should become a spiritual master only for the service of the Lord. The Lord never tolerates the impertinence of maryada-vyatikrama. One should never pass over the honor due to an elderly spiritual master in the interests of one’s own personal gain and fame. Impertinence on the part of the pseudo spiritual master is very risky to progressive spiritual realization.” [back to text]

3.purport, Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-lila 12.8: “In the beginning, during the presence of Om Vishnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacharya Ashtottara-shata Sri Shrimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, all the disciples worked in agreement; but just after his disappearance, they disagreed. One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next Acharya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of Acharya, and they split into two factions over who the next Acharya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master.” [back to text]

4.Letter to: Rupanuga, Tirupati, 28 April, 1974 (74-04-28): Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become Acharya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them. This attempt was made previously by them, especially Madhava Maharaja and Tirtha Maharaja and Bon Maharaja but somehow or other I saved the situation. This is going on. We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress. So we must be very careful about them. [back to text]